Here is a quick mini-paradox.
Although deep transverse cross frictions certainly can work, the existing
popular explanation for their effectiveness still seems rather curious.
Presuming that this method breaks down existing adhesions or scarring by
retraumatising them, is it not logical that they simply scar or adhere again
to heal the re-damage? Of course, then one repeats the friction and the
microdamage, and so on, thereby somehow mysteriously facilitating tissue
regrowth and not scar formation.
Do we hypothesise that this process of cross frictioning then results in
optimal scarring, scar resorption and contractile tissue regrowth, or optimal
repositioning of muscle fibres, myofibrils or connective tissue? Or is it
that cross friction simply releases some localised muscle spasm and that it
has no effect on some type of tissue repair?
Either something like this or there must be some other explanation for this
form of soft tissue therapy.
Any suggestions or relevant references?
Dr Mel C Siff
Denver, USA
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|